Battle for Section 230 - The Situation Monitoring Thread for Monitoring the Situation of the Situation Monitor's Situation Monitoring

[3119967d0c]

Right, that's what I mean. Even if everyone had strict liability, Null isn't responsible for Lolcow LLC.

You fucking idiot. Your previous argument, "The lawsuits against Null personally are not dismissed on basis of s230, are they?" was specious crap. As I pointed out, you enormous retard, they are dismissed because the retards file against Null personally instead of against his corporate body which they would not be able to take action against because of 230.

With that gone, all bets are off.

You are a fucking idiot who should die in a fire, tied to Matthew Prince with a 225mm wide strip of rubber.

If Lolcow LLC were a Gambian company, and it were sued in a US court and didn't show up, then how could they collect on Null for that? If not, then he can just incorporate in whatever country and ignore foreign court judgements.

Well yes, if Null incorporated elsewhere, he would only have to worry about lawsuits in US court preventing him from ever returning to the US for any reason.

And from foreign governments deporting him to the US.

And from foreign companies not actually providing any protection to free speech once they came under pressure, which is already a concern with US companies protected by 230.

I'm shocked he doesn't want to embrace being treated worse than Julian Assange.

 

[hundredpercent]

Well yes, if Null incorporated elsewhere, he would only have to worry about lawsuits in US court preventing him from ever returning to the US for any reason.

Can a civil judgement in the US against your company result in civil liability for you personally? It's a basic principle of corporate law that owners aren't responsible for their corporation's debts.

And from foreign governments deporting him to the US.

Can you be extradited on unpaid debt? A civil tort can never result in a loss of freedom.

 

[2021Murder]

...do you really think the Jews are going to be stopped from rape hoaxing Null by *squints* section 230?

according to @Unassuming Local Guy the answer is yes. in fact jews just want to protect us and in fact you're a nazi for not wanting to go with the destruction of section 230

 

[3119967d0c]

Can a civil judgement in the US against your company result in civil liability for you personally? It's a basic principle of corporate law that owners aren't responsible for their corporation's debts.

Can you be extradited on unpaid debt? A civil tort can never result in a loss of freedom.

You are a fucking retard.

 

[Desu Mountain]

The senate hearing on FB/Twitter has started.

 

[66andtwothirds]

so basically a lot of breitbart type sites or even the daily mail would probably close their comment sections for good as now they are held accountable for what commenters say?

 

[Epsteindidnothingwrong]

The Doll is Ruth... KEK

 

[Desu Mountain]

I can't listen to this shit anymore. The Senate's dumbass questions ("Mr. Dorsey, do you deny the Holocaust? Do you hate Israel? Do you support the murder of Jews?"), and Jack's and Zuck's slimy answers and blatant lies are just pissing me off. This hearing isn't going anywhere.

 

[ScatmansWorld]

With proper payment processing, you still won't have the virality of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter back in the good old days.
With uncensored social media but no payment processing, there will still be people making content for no financial gain.

Dude, this is the real world, and in the real world people make content for money, not upvotes and compliments. Do you think Lowtax would of gave 2 shits about SomethingAwful after a year or so if he didn't charge tenbux for it? Do you think Tom Fulp would still be hosting Newgrounds if he kept it ad free and made free flash games all his life instead of selling commercial video games? Sure, one-off videos and memes will still be around, but anyone who wants to create consistent content and/or invest in a platform needs to be assured that whoever/whatever handles their money doesn't go "Uh oh you let someone say a bad word now fuck off" , because NO ONE is going to fucking bother spending a sizable portion of their life dealing with that possibility. They'd rather shut everything down, get off the internet, and work a 9-5 office job or some shit.

 

[hundredpercent]

Dude, this is the real world, and in the real world people make content for money, not upvotes and compliments. Do you think Lowtax would of gave 2 shits about SomethingAwful after a year or so if he didn't charge tenbux for it? Do you think Tom Fulp would still be hosting Newgrounds if he kept it ad free and made free flash games all his life instead of selling commercial video games? Sure, one-off videos and memes will still be around, but anyone who wants to create consistent content and/or invest in a platform needs to be assured that whoever/whatever handles their money doesn't go "Uh oh you let someone say a bad word now fuck off" , because NO ONE is going to fucking bother spending a sizable portion of their life dealing with that possibility. They'd rather shut everything down, get off the internet, and work a 9-5 office job or some shit.

People on both sides are gonna make content regardless. If you allow people to spread it, but not profit off it, you're still going to get people like Gex who do it for political/humor purposes.
- appeared out of nowhere on 8chan
- posts one video on youtube
- goes viral, to the point where normie friends were sending it to me
- disappears off the face of the earth

If you allow them to profit off of it but not spread it, you're just gonna get grifters who stream useless trash and get donations from the few hundred people still watching them.

The Daily Stormer runs at a loss, Gex never monetized anything, this forum is hardly a cash cow. To be quite honest with you, I prefer the one-off videos and memes of /pol/ to the "consistent content and investment in platforms" that YouTube "content creators" offer.

 

[D̥̜̖͗͆̿E̼̰VÔ̦Ȗ̟̹̮͊͋R͊̒]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332175155104247808

https://archive.md/WsVsQ

The dumbass is at it again.

EDIT: The actual proposed legislation isn't as dystopian as Trump's shitposting

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-proposed-section-230-legislation

 

[Jack Awful]

View attachment 1751486

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332175155104247808

https://archive.md/WsVsQ

The dumbass is at it again.

I was gonna say that this could rally the never Trumpers into protecting 230, but they want to remove it too to censor the internet and get rid of us.

 

[3119967d0c]

I was gonna say that this could rally the never Trumpers into protecting 230, but they want to remove it too to censor the internet and get rid of us.

How much did Kenyan King Obongo Husseini attack free speech on the internet?

 

[Jack Awful]

How much did Kenyan King Obongo Husseini attack free speech on the internet?

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke

https://archive.md/2bsEd

Idk, but Biden has shown interest in doing it.

He allegedly wants to reinstate Net Neutrality, but it won't do shit if 230 dies.

 

[TFT-A9]

Just waiting for Nool to have his big "disappear into the mists" moment.

 

[Respect the Erect]

If you apply that principle consistently, freedom of speech becomes a total joke.
* Hey, the grocery store is a private business, they can deny anyone service!
* Hey, your landlord is a private business, they don't have to let you rent there!
* Hey, banks are private businesses, you have no right to get a loan from them!
* Hey, your employer is a private business, they're under no obligation to employ you!
You can apply this indefinitely. If you do, freedom of speech would become an entity that exists on paper only, like a Cayman Islands shell corporation. You would have the theoretical right, but the moment you exercised it you'd be unemployed, broke, homeless, and hungry.

As for your point about where to draw a line - this is just the sorites paradox. If I run a nightclub, it's totally acceptable to ethnically discriminate, or to tell ugly/fat guests to fuck off. If I run a restaurant, maybe. If I run a fast food joint, no. If I run a grocery store, absolutely not.

It would be one or the other. You either run it as a civilized, regulated place, where you can tell people to fuck off for any reason or no reason at all. In that case, you implicitly support those you let in, and are responsible for what they do. Or you run it as a public square, and just let anyone in for any reason.

What you shouldn't be able to do is run something which in every way, shape, and form resembles a public square, but actually isn't. If you could, the 1st amendment would be rendered totally toothless.

You’ve made every correct point and then said it was wrong. I’ve never seen this level before. Are you Kevin Logan?

 

[Terrorist]

Republicans aren’t ignorant of 230 just because they’re old. That’s cope. You can’t tell me there’s not a single person in these discussions that understands what 230 is and what repealing it would do.

The real reason is they genuinely don’t want to do anything about big tech censorship. Like most anti-elite rhetoric from them it’s just empty grandstanding to rile up the base. The GOP is a corporatist party, under no circumstance will they tell their corporate donors “no”. Their internal party line has always been “muh free market, private corporations can do what they want, make ur own you snowflake”.

Ignore Trump’s tweets for a second - what has he *done* about big tech? Called them “MAGA companies” and given them massive tax cuts. He’s probably clueless about 230, but fed a convenient line about it by staffers, lobbyists, and LARPing phonies like Josh Hawley (who’s the right’s Liz Warren: fake dissident with the charisma of sawdust who defers to the party line 99% of the time).

Attacking 230 is perfect for the new fake-nationalist MO of the GOP. It sounds smart, serious, signals a move away from corporatism and towards anti-elitism...but ultimately plays right back into the hands of the liberal elite (which the GOP serves as the right flank of).

 

[KingCoelacanth]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578

Trump just said 230 is a threat to our national security, will veto the National Defense Authorization Act if it doesn't include a complete termination of 230.
How antisemetic to withhold whatever shekels the bill will grant to Israel.

 

[The Perplexing Ms. Escape]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578

Trump just said 230 is a threat to our national security, will veto the National Defense Authorization Act if it doesn't include a complete termination of 230.
How antisemetic to withhold whatever shekels the bill will grant to Israel.

Based Zion Don. Either no sheckles for Israel or I get to sue this site for emotional distress so I can buy a new suit.

 

[Jack Awful]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578

Trump just said 230 is a threat to our national security, will veto the National Defense Authorization Act if it doesn't include a complete termination of 230.
How antisemetic to withhold whatever shekels the bill will grant to Israel.

It sucks that almost all the responses shitting on him are generic quotes about dictatorships, unrelated accusations, calls for his arrest, or unfunny insults like calling him a baby, none directly addressing 230, and all clearly Tweeted at Trump as fast as possible in order to get as many likes as they could.